Good to know, thank you. Tract has gone a similar route, they use LOW for their scopes and spec Schott glass, sounds like Zeiss has followed suit. These could end up being a really good value, I am tempted to grab one to compare to my March 4.5-28x52
As am I! No one comes close to that FOV though.
Oh good, let me encourage you to grab one first (so I don't have to spend the money, ha), I trust your eyes and opinion, waiting for your review
I suspect you are responding to me. I probably led you astray thinking that I was using my March-FX 4.5-28X52 HM on my F-TR match rifle for 1000-yard competition. In fact, I was talking about two different March riflescopes. The one on my F-TR match rifle is a March-X 10-60X56 HM which I run at 50X all the time, year-round, around the country. It is an SFP riflescope with a very small and fine reticle. That's the one that is near mechanical zero at 1000 yards. I have it slightly above 1000 yards so I can shoot the odd 600-yard matches. When I do load development and other such things at 100 or 200 yards, I use a 4-foot-tall target and aim at the bottom. The holes show up 30-some inches above and impact nicely in the berm. I achieved this with a combination of 20 MOA rails and Burris XTR Signature rings.
/sarc.
...... nonexistent.
That is a not just a good point, but a great one, that has kept me a bit Leary on these.
, this is one of the reason it has given me pause, so I have paused once again. Might be passing up a great deal. But what if I don’t like it, it will probably be crazy hard to unload, or if there is something wrong with it now or later, the warranty isn’t anything like some of these other manufacturers with Awesome CS (I know, I know, well it’s so good and well built you never need a warranty). Even a Lexus and Toyota need a warranty, at least 1-2 sometimes skip through the cracks on QC. So anyone who says a forever warranty shows the company doesn’t make a good product, that such crap talking, that’s you trying to convince yourself you didn’t waste your money. Sure Vortex’s shouldn’t have to go back as much as some say they should (no I don’t own any, but did, before I decided to go with Alpha glass), but ZCO, TT, stand behind there products. As well as companies like Vortex and Burris as more mainstream. I honestly wouldn’t mind taking a go at the XTR Pro, but why, why did they have to add that ugly red, nice on a car but not on a scope, bad decision IMO.A unlimited lifetime warranty is not a sign of great quality but having most of the lineup and revenue made up of branded Asian products with huge profit margins ,where its literally cheaper to give out new products vs fix the product. As 90+% of customers rarely use the product, most wouldn't know if it its malfunctioning anyway short of it falling apart, and those that do are small percentage so its cheap enough to run the lifetime warranty which is not a an aftersales program but a business and sales model, much harder to do the same with high-end products that run on thin profit margins and then there are the legal aspects of warranty in different countries. Euro scope brands rarely offer anything close to Vortex type of lifetime warranty, but they stand by their products and will repair one as long as there are spare parts for them available ofen long after the product is phased out.
...... nonexistent."...........
Oh good, let me encourage you to grab one first (so I don't have to spend the money, ha), I trust your eyes and opinion, waiting for your review
My Gen3 impressed me so much I decided to move the TT and ZCO out, is it as good - no, but darn near close enough, just wish their turrets were better. I've needed to sell a bunch of kit to help pay for kids and the hellish inflation we're living in right now, I will probably go back to ZCO at some point down the road.
I agree with the above statement, which is also why we have such a plethora of options
This is a point that I even sometimes fail to remember, I do have my bias's when it comes to scopes and one thing that bugs me are scopes that tunnel, but I'd venture to say there is a reason that an optical engineer chose to design the scope that way - a compromise to make a gain somewhere else within the limitations of the overall design. Maybe they're trying to meet a price point, maybe a design objective (like a short scope, or increased DOF) or what have you, there are reasons design decisions are made.
See above, what is "meaningful" to me may not be to you. Take advice from the forums with a grain of salt, I do not feel the edge distortion is horrible, but I do wish it was better than it is. It is workable is the best I can describe it.
I've only had mine behind a SIMRAD, if that counts in your book it did outstanding on the low end, the wide FOV really helped here.
Parallax on the 4.5-28 is much better than on the other FFP March scopes.
The 3-24 is FFP??? I would say the FML-TR1H reticle is one of my favorite for low mag work; however the NF NX8 2.5-20x50 is a better design overall than the 3-24.
Thanks for the informative reply! I got the 2.5-25 and the 3-24 mixed up. I wish the 2.5-25 was FFP. Glad tha parallax on the 4.5-28 is better than other March designs, that should translate to easier CNVD performance.
I'll have a review coming out fairly soon, but in a nutshell the NX8 2.5-20 has better resolution overall, better edge to edge sharpness, better CA control, it's just a more pleasing experience throughout the magnification range. The 3-24 really struggles above 20x, so I think of it more as a 3-20x52 scope. If someone were to offer me one or the other scope, it would come down to whether or not low magnification use was a more important criteria vs. high magnification use as the FML-TR1H is definitely geared toward low magnification use while the Mil-XT et al is geared for higher magnification use. If I could have the FML-TR1H in the NX8 2.5-20 I would choose that without question. Keep in mind this is the newer NX8 2.5-20 scopes, I was an early adopter back when they were first released and that copy was an optical mess that I did not recommend to anyone, but it appears NF has "fixed" the issues the early versions suffered from, either that or I (and others on the Hide) just happened to get a scope that slipped through QC cracks.
Shot out to 1.5 miles earlier this year and didn't go over 16x, so yes
I got to play with an S3 6-36 at my local store…. Exceptional scope for the value. I’ll probably be adding one of the 4-25 or 6-36x MIL versions to the stable soon. Not sure which gun I would put it on just yet (weight & overall size), but probably my custom .300 Ackley or 7mm STW…Or whatever rifle I build next, which will probably be a Proof barreled 7PRC.
Your local Obstetrician also has an ultrasound machine... I can see it now, "can you do an ultrasound on my little baby here"
No unfortunately. I’ve been shooting more than I’m writing. But a good reminder to get all the numbers and thoughts written up.
Okay F7, here's some that I've done. I did a number that were on the old Scout site that SH used to be on, but those were lost when Scout went full woke and Frank decided to move back to his own platform.
www.snipershide.com
I disagree with the “unfortunately” statement. Glad you’re able to get out and shoot.
